Thanks Jerry. I read about that off Drudge Report. The Noah director wanted to make something closely resembling the biblical story (there is plenty of room for opinion within the story as there are so many scenarios that are not covered in the bible story). it seems the studios wanted him to tweak it to make it more open to all religions, therefore making it less biblical and more of a fictional story... This is where I am not sure how it will end up. They went back and forth and no one has seen the end product yet... It may end up being OK, but I agree that I will not see it if early reports indicate it is a farce of a depiction of the actual events.

From what I read, it seems like there was only one scene in which he was drunk, which was referred to below.

Quote:

{9:20} And Noah, a good farmer, began to cultivate the land, and he planted a vineyard.
{9:21} And by drinking its wine, he became inebriated and was naked in his tent.
{9:22} Because of this, when Ham, the father of Canaan, had indeed seen the privates of his father to be naked, he reported it to his two brothers outside.

[SIZE=4][/SIZE]

__________________
2cor 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, most beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God.

If it's not attacking Christianity as the Davinci Code did (which I decided not to watch in protest), then this "Noah" shall be treated as a work of pure fiction flick. I have seen the previews, and this Noah doesn't have the looks of an old man.

There are many Hollywood movies that are very loosely based on true events or other fiction works, not faithfull at all on the source material.

The film claims that God brought the flood because humanity was ruining the environment. That's the sinfulness of humanity. At one point in the film, Noah considers murdering his two grandchildren (infants) on the Ark so that humanity could not continue harming the environment. Sick.

But the article incorrectly claims that fallen angels mated with human women. That is not correct.

[Genesis 6]
{6:1} And when men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,
{6:2} the sons of God, seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took to themselves wives from all whom they chose.
{6:3} And God said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, because he is flesh. And so his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

Fallen angels would never be called "sons of God" by Scripture. Also, neither holy angels nor fallen angels can conceive a child, since they do not have bodies.

We are all sons and daughters of God; we are all sons and daughters of men. Since the human race is descended from Adam and Eve, we are all "of God".

And each human person has their soul created directly by God, at the moment of conception. The "sons of God" are not some type of non-human figures who married the daughters of men. It is a reference to human persons who were living as sons of God. In other words, this figurative term singles out those human persons (men and women) who were worshippers of God. The "daughters of men" are similarly human persons (men and women) who were living very secular lives. They were not worshippers of God.

This passage is about the problems cause by intermarriage between believers and unbelievers. The problem occurs both when a man believer marries a woman unbeliever, and vice versa. Perhaps men were more susceptible to this error, being attracted by the beauty of women. The Jewish rabbis, who were most probably the authors of Genesis, understood this problem, which preceded the Jewish Faith. Even apart from any formal religion, the intermarriage of believers and unbelievers has always been a fundamental problem in human society.

{6:4} Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they conceived, these became the powerful ones of ancient times, men of renown.

The term giants is a figurative element in this part of the story of Noah, which we might term the 'preface' of the Flood story. A literal approach to this verse is problematic. There is no historical or archaeological evidence of a race of giants. These "giants" are explained as the children of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men". But neither of the parents in this description were giants themselves. So science and reason indicate that the literal interpretation is incorrect.

As a figure of speech, the term "giants" works well in this verse. The believers in God ("sons of God") were great before God and man. So even when they married unbelievers, their children still attained to a certain greatness, benefiting from having at least one parent who was a believer. These children became great in secular society, but perhaps not so great before God. They were "powerful ones," that is "men of renown". So this verse explicitly presents to us the proper understanding of the figure "giants". It refers to persons who were great within civilization: powerful and renown men and women in secular society. These were not literal giants.